An experimental study of powder tattooing of the skin.

Test firings were conducted on specially prepared live rabbits to determine the approximate maximum ranges at which powder tattooing occurs for different forms of gunpowder. For .38 caliber, powder tattooing from cartridges loaded with flake powder disappears at a range of 18 to 24 in. (0.4 to 0.6 m). Powder tattooing with flattened ball powder extends to 36 in. (0.9 m), while that due to ball powder extends to 48 in. (1.2m) of range. In .22 caliber, powder tattooing was observed out to 24 in. (0.6 m) with flake powder and 18 in. (0.4 m) with flattened ball. Attempts to reproduce the animal powder tattoo patterns on paper revealed that the paper patterns are consistent with skin tattoo patterns only up to 18 in (0.4 m) of range.     

Data collection in litigation control

Behavioral Litigation Support Services, Inc.     

Discretionary Justice: Decision Making in a State Juvenile Parole Board

The literature in Criminal Justice is replete with commentary on both the virtues and injustices associated with adult parole board decision-making. There has been far less attention paid to juvenile parole boards in part because so few of them exist. Institutional release decisions in most states still remain the purview of juvenile institutional staff members. This paper examines parole Authority decision-making in a citizen-dominated state juvenile parole board. The paper focuses on the conduct of hearings, dispositional guidelines, criteria used by board members in decision-making and the advocacy role of parole officers and institutional staff. The influence of deinstitutionalization and least restrictive policies on parole Authority decision making is also discussed. During recent years, the literature in criminal justice has become replete with commentary on the virtues and injustices associated with parole board decision-making. Consequently, many questions have been raised about disparate sentences, the criteria used by parole boards in making decisions, unstructured discretion, and the pressing need for guidelines and statistically accurate parole prediction instruments. The intent of this paper is to examine parole decision-making in a state juvenile parole board where individualized treatment and rehabilitation have been long standing goals. The paper focuses upon the criteria used by board members in decision-making, the conduct of hearings, the guideline system used to determine a recommended length of confinement and the advocacy role of parole officers and institutional staff. The influence of deinstitutionalization and least restrictive policies on parole board decision-making is also discussed. The author is presently completing the second year of a two-year appointment as a member of the Parole Authority under discussion. Since December, 1983, the author has continuously observed and participated in approximately 300 individual parole hearings over thirty-seven hearing days.     

THE COURTS AND RISK ASSESSMENT1

In the past decade the federal courts have come to play an important role in reviewing agency decision-making on prospective risks. Questioning the conventional wisdom that judges are poorly equipped for the task, the authors outline the range of choices facing courts in such cases and contend that they cannot avoid making ultimate decisions on risk policy. However, recent Supreme Court cases on nuclear hazards and occupational benzene indicate narrowing of the scope for judicial review.